# CloakBrowser vs uncompressed

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | CloakBrowser | uncompressed |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 75/100 ✓ | 47/100 |
| Rank in category | #2 of 11 in Browser Automation | #71 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 32 584 ✓ | 213 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +226 ✓ | +0 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 5 ✓ | 1 |
| Latest release | chromium-v155.0.8059.39.2-pro · 27 Oct 2026 ✓ | v1.0.0 · 4 Apr 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes ✓ | No |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Main language | Python | Shell |

## Which one should you pick?

CloakBrowser scores 75/100 against 47/100 for uncompressed, so it is the safer default.

CloakBrowser ships more often: 5 stable releases in the past year, against 1 for uncompressed.

If you want the quickest setup, CloakBrowser is easier to run; uncompressed needs more configuration.

CloakBrowser is growing faster right now (+226 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [CloakBrowser](https://selfhost.directory/project/cloakbrowser) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/cloakbrowser.md)
- [uncompressed](https://selfhost.directory/project/uncompressed) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/uncompressed.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/cloakbrowser-vs-uncompressed